Maria Vinsensia1, Peter L Chyoke2, Boris Hadaschik3,4, Tim Holland-Letz5, Jan Moltz6, Klaus Kopka7, Isabel Rauscher8, Walter Mier1, Markus Schwaiger8, Uwe Haberkorn1,9, Tobias Mauer10, Clemens Kratochwil1, Matthias Eiber8,11, Frederik L Giesel12,9. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 2. Molecular Imaging Program, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 3. Department of Urology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 4. Department of Urology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. 5. Department of Biostatistics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. 6. Fraunhofer MEVIS, Bremen, Germany. 7. Radiopharmaceutical Chemistry, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. 8. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. 9. Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology Cooperation Unit Nuclear Medicine (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. 10. Clinical Cooperation Unit Nuclear Medicine, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; and. 11. Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California. 12. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany frederik@egiesel.com.
Abstract
68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT is a new method to detect early nodal metastases in patients with biochemical relapse of prostate cancer. In this retrospective investigation, the dimensions, volume, localization, and SUVmax of nodes identified by 68Ga-PSMA were correlated to their Gleason score (GS) at diagnosis. Methods: All PET/CT images were acquired 60 ± 10 min after intravenous injection of 68Ga-PSMA (mean dose, 176 MBq). In 147 prostate cancer patients (mean age, 68 y; range, 44-87 y) with prostate-specific antigen relapse (mean prostate-specific antigen level, 5 ng/mL; range, 0.25-294 ng/mL), 362 68Ga-PSMA PET-positive lymph nodes (LNs) were identified. These patients were classified on the basis of their histopathology at primary diagnosis into either low- (GS ≤ 6, well differentiated), intermediate- (GS = 7, moderately differentiated), or high-GS cohorts (GS ≥ 8, poorly differentiated prostate cancer). Using semiautomated LN segmentation software (Fraunhofer MEVIS), we measured node volume and short-axis dimensions (SADs) and long-axis dimensions based on CT and compared with the SUVmax Nodes demonstrating uptake of 68Ga-PSMA with an SUVmax of 2.0 or more were considered PSMA-positive, and nodes with an SAD of 8 mm or more were considered positive by morphologic criteria. Results: Mean SUVmax was 13.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.9-16.1), 12.4 (95% CI, 9.9-14.9), and 17.8 (95% CI, 15.4-20.3) within the low-, intermediate-, and high-GS groups, respectively. The morphologic assessment of the 68Ga-PSMA-positive LN demonstrated that the low-GS cohort presented with smaller 68Ga-PSMA-positive LNs (mean SAD, 7.7 mm; n = 113), followed by intermediate- (mean SAD, 9.4 mm; n = 122) and high-GS cohorts (mean SAD, 9.5 mm; n = 127). On the basis of the CT morphology criteria, only 34% of low-GS patients, 56% of intermediate-GS patients, and 53% of high-GS patients were considered CT positive. Overall, 68Ga-PSMA imaging led to a reclassification of stage in 90 patients (61%) from cN0 to cN1 over CT. Conclusion: 68Ga-PSMA PET is a promising modality in biochemical recurrent prostate cancer patients for N staging. Conventional imaging underestimates LN involvement compared with PSMA molecular staging score in each GS cohort. The sensitivity of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT enables earlier detection of subcentimeter LN metastases in the biochemical recurrence setting.
68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT is a new method to detect early nodal metastases in patients with biochemical relapse of prostate cancer. In this retrospective investigation, the dimensions, volume, localization, and SUVmax of nodes identified by 68Ga-PSMA were correlated to their Gleason score (GS) at diagnosis. Methods: All PET/CT images were acquired 60 ± 10 min after intravenous injection of 68Ga-PSMA (mean dose, 176 MBq). In 147 prostate cancerpatients (mean age, 68 y; range, 44-87 y) with prostate-specific antigen relapse (mean prostate-specific antigen level, 5 ng/mL; range, 0.25-294 ng/mL), 362 68Ga-PSMA PET-positive lymph nodes (LNs) were identified. These patients were classified on the basis of their histopathology at primary diagnosis into either low- (GS ≤ 6, well differentiated), intermediate- (GS = 7, moderately differentiated), or high-GS cohorts (GS ≥ 8, poorly differentiated prostate cancer). Using semiautomated LN segmentation software (Fraunhofer MEVIS), we measured node volume and short-axis dimensions (SADs) and long-axis dimensions based on CT and compared with the SUVmax Nodes demonstrating uptake of 68Ga-PSMA with an SUVmax of 2.0 or more were considered PSMA-positive, and nodes with an SAD of 8 mm or more were considered positive by morphologic criteria. Results: Mean SUVmax was 13.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.9-16.1), 12.4 (95% CI, 9.9-14.9), and 17.8 (95% CI, 15.4-20.3) within the low-, intermediate-, and high-GS groups, respectively. The morphologic assessment of the 68Ga-PSMA-positive LN demonstrated that the low-GS cohort presented with smaller 68Ga-PSMA-positive LNs (mean SAD, 7.7 mm; n = 113), followed by intermediate- (mean SAD, 9.4 mm; n = 122) and high-GS cohorts (mean SAD, 9.5 mm; n = 127). On the basis of the CT morphology criteria, only 34% of low-GSpatients, 56% of intermediate-GSpatients, and 53% of high-GSpatients were considered CT positive. Overall, 68Ga-PSMA imaging led to a reclassification of stage in 90 patients (61%) from cN0 to cN1 over CT. Conclusion: 68Ga-PSMA PET is a promising modality in biochemical recurrent prostate cancerpatients for N staging. Conventional imaging underestimates LN involvement compared with PSMA molecular staging score in each GS cohort. The sensitivity of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT enables earlier detection of subcentimeter LN metastases in the biochemical recurrence setting.
Authors: Frederik L Giesel; Claudia Kesch; Mijin Yun; Jens Cardinale; Uwe Haberkorn; Klaus Kopka; Clemens Kratochwil; Boris A Hadaschik Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2016-12-29 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Sung Yoon Park; Young Taik Oh; Dae Chul Jung; Nam Hoon Cho; Young Deuk Choi; Koon Ho Rha Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Stephen J Freedland; Joseph C Presti; Christopher L Amling; Christopher J Kane; William J Aronson; Frederick Dorey; Martha K Terris Journal: Urology Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Zsolt Szabo; Esther Mena; Steven P Rowe; Donika Plyku; Rosa Nidal; Mario A Eisenberger; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Hong Fan; Robert F Dannals; Ying Chen; Ronnie C Mease; Melin Vranesic; Akrita Bhatnagar; George Sgouros; Steve Y Cho; Martin G Pomper Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: S Hijazi; B Meller; C Leitsmann; A Strauss; J Meller; C O Ritter; J Lotz; H-U Schildhaus; L Trojan; C O Sahlmann Journal: Prostate Date: 2015-09-10 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Jonathan I Epstein; Lars Egevad; Mahul B Amin; Brett Delahunt; John R Srigley; Peter A Humphrey Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: A M Hövels; R A M Heesakkers; E M Adang; G J Jager; S Strum; Y L Hoogeveen; J L Severens; J O Barentsz Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2008-02-04 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Frederik L Giesel; B Hadaschik; J Cardinale; J Radtke; M Vinsensia; W Lehnert; C Kesch; Y Tolstov; S Singer; N Grabe; S Duensing; M Schäfer; O C Neels; W Mier; U Haberkorn; K Kopka; C Kratochwil Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-11-26 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Jeremie Calais; Amar U Kishan; Minsong Cao; Wolfgang P Fendler; Matthias Eiber; Ken Herrmann; Francesco Ceci; Robert E Reiter; Matthew B Rettig; John V Hegde; Narek Shaverdian; Chris R King; Michael L Steinberg; Johannes Czernin; Nicholas G Nickols Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-04-13 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Stefan A Koerber; Gerald Stach; Clemens Kratochwil; Matthias F Haefner; Henrik Rathke; Klaus Herfarth; Klaus Kopka; Tim Holland-Letz; Peter L Choyke; Uwe Haberkorn; Juergen Debus; Frederik L Giesel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-07-13 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Sebastian Zschaeck; Fabian Lohaus; Marcus Beck; Gregor Habl; Stephanie Kroeze; Constantinos Zamboglou; Stefan Alexander Koerber; Jürgen Debus; Tobias Hölscher; Peter Wust; Ute Ganswindt; Alexander D J Baur; Klaus Zöphel; Nikola Cihoric; Matthias Guckenberger; Stephanie E Combs; Anca Ligia Grosu; Pirus Ghadjar; Claus Belka Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-05-11 Impact factor: 3.481